ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROTECTIVE
ORDER IN PART,
DENYING THE MOTION IN PART, AND DENYING SANCTIONS

Summary:
Claimant moved for a protective order regarding discovery requests seeking
among other things, income information and information regarding subsequent
injuries.

Held: Where the
putative insurer has already paid TTD benefits, and the issue surrounding
TTD is only unreasonable delay in payment, claimant need not produce information
regarding income or subsequent injuries. Other discovery ordered.

Topics:

Discovery:
Protective Orders. Where the putative insurer has already paid TTD
benefits, and the issue surrounding TTD is only unreasonable delay in
payment, claimant need not produce information regarding income or subsequent
injuries. Protective order granted, though other discovery ordered.

¶1 Claimant has moved for
a protective order with respect to certain interrogatories and requests
for production propounded upon him by respondent Human Dynamics, Inc.,
(HDI).

¶2 The present proceeding
consists of two cases which have been consolidated. One of the actions
seeks medical benefits from, in the alternative, HDI or the Uninsured
Employers' Fund (UEF). The second seeks a 20% penalty and attorney fees
with respect to temporary total disability benefits claimant alleges
were paid by HDI but which were unreasonably delayed. Discovery which
may lead to relevant evidence concerning either of the issues is proper.
Rule 26(b)(1), Mont.R.Civ.P.

¶3 Some of the discovery
launched by HDI concerns claimant's entitlement to temporary total disability
benefits. For example, HDI seeks income information and information
with respect to subsequent injuries. This sort of discovery is not calculated
to lead to admissible evidence. The penalty and attorney fees are sought
with respect to benefits paid, i.e., benefits that HDI has already admitted
are due. There is no counter-claim for fraud or mistake, and the Court
will not permit discovery which goes beyond the bounds of the issues
raised.

¶4 HDI also asks for copies
of all exhibits claimant intends to offer at trial. That is not a proper
request for production and is covered in any event by the Court's exchange
requirement.

¶5 Having considered the
claimant's objections, the Court makes the following Order:

ORDER

¶6 1. Claimant's objections
to interrogatories 1 and 2 and requests for production 1, 2, 4, and
6 are sustained.

¶7 2. Claimant's objections
to interrogatory 3 and request for production 3 are overruled
since the information requested may be relevant to his entitlement to
medical benefits.

¶8 3. Claimant's objection
to request for production 5, which seeks medical records relating to
his injury, is overruled; irrespective of the request,
he has a continuing obligation to provide those records. ARM 24.5.317.

¶9 4. Claimant's objections
to requests for production 7, 8 and 9 are overruled.
The information concerning post-marking of benefits mailed to him is
plainly relevant to his claim of undue delay. Information concerning
conversations with HDI may be relevant to the claim of undue delay.

¶10 5. HDI's request for
attorney fees is denied since some of the objections
to discovery were meritorious.

¶11 6. No later than Friday,
March 6, 1998, the claimant shall FAX further answers and responses
to HDI with respect to those interrogatories and requests for production
to which his objections have been overruled.